Grants talk:IEG/Enhance the ProveIt gadget

Centralization

I don't have a strong preference about where the gadget is developed. However, I think it should be centralized to the extent possible. It says both, "I will create a project for it at Phabricator for the community to be able to request enhancements and report bugs." and "which will allow tracking bugs and enhancements via the GitHub issues system".

If you want to create a Phabricator project, I suggest you instead migrate all the issues to Phabricator and then disable issues on GitHub. That is our normal policy for GitHub mirrors, e.g. https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-Echo . It avoids having to deal with issues in two places. Mattflaschen - Talk 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense, I just updated my proposal, thanks! --Sophivorus (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for review and scoring. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period (through 2 May 2016).

The committee's formal review begins on 3 May 2016, and grants will be announced 17 June 2016. See the round 1 2016 schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us at iegrantswikimedia · org .

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Integration with Citoid?

Thank you for writing this very comprehensive and complete proposal! Was a pleasure to read!

Only question I have is if you've looked at integrating it with mw:Citoid, which powers references in VE? YuviPanda (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! Yes, there's an issue open about it at https://github.com/proveit-js/proveit/issues/199 and the other active developer of the gadget, Matt Flaschen, has recently expressed interest in taking care of it. My proposal includes a proviso for implementing requested enhancements. Integration with Citoid would be one of such requested enhancements, so I will take care of it if time permits and Matt doesn't do it first. Cheers! --Sophivorus (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for Enhance the ProveIt gadget

Scoring rubric	Score
(A) Impact potential Does it have the potential to increase gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, either in terms of content, contributors, or both? Does it have the potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	8.1
(B) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support?	7.5
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in the proposed timeframe? Is the budget realistic/efficient ? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	7.9
(D) Measures of success Are there both quantitative and qualitative measures of success? Are they realistic? Can they be measured?	7.4
Additional comments from the Committee: Anything that can possibly simplify adding references is more than welcome! This project fits with Wikimedia's strategic priority to increase and diversify knowledge by developing high-priority curation and creation tools. By making improvements to the ProveIt gadget and making the gadget available to more Wikipedias there is good potential for online impact. Another bonus/contribution of this work is being a test case for centralizing the process/workflows of gadget development and maintenance. This will also contribute to the sustainability of the gadget. I like that he is moving to Gerrit. It would be good if he could integrate the tool with VisualEditor as well, but maybe moving it to Gerrit is a first step. Moving it to a WMF-hosted repository would make it more sustainable by people familiar with WMF development after the grant ends. Integrating it with the VisualEditor would also increase its impact. Citations are great, and our smaller wikis struggle without help around these areas. I've been explicitly asked for this at least from the Tamil Wiki community, and seen how people attempt to use references on such wikis. Big +1 to me. It might be good to consider integration with Visual Editor, which would align with WMF efforts. Yes. Love the autofill idea. It's a good idea to connect this tool with Wikidata so that references are autocompleted with existing data (or new references get added to Wikidata). The risks seem low given the detailed project plan and the relevant experience of the grantee. Solid measures of success are provided. I also like that the grantee even identified measures for hard-to-quantify goals, like improvement in the quality of references. The cost for six months of work isn't much risk, but for this amount of money I assume the applicant isn't dedicated to it full-time. That said, he has already done a lot with the tool and seems committed, so I think would be good to reward and encourage his work in this way. I see big potential impact in adapting the tool to other wikis and increasing its availability. Creating a library of widely used references is also potentially useful across the language wiki. He has laid out clear success measures and indicated goals that are higher risk by putting them later in the delivery timeline. Attempting to shoehorn all development into MediaWiki extensions (which have a fairly strict deployment criteria) is in the long-term an unsuccessful proposition. Gadgets embrace the distribution of Wikimedia, and more work into improving & making gadgets available more widely is great. Learnings from this could be used for spreading the love for other useful gadgets as well. Visual Editor might be a better place for enhancement. Sounds doable, because the applicant has experience that has been endorsed. Scope and budget seem good. The applicant has relevant expertise as the main developer of the gadget and is an experienced contributor/community member. Yes, super-realistic, and the applicant has already contributed to the gadget, so he has the skills and experience. This has the endorsement of Matt Flaschen, who I know to be an excellent software engineer from personal experience. Yes, we need more user-friendly citation models. It's good to see the applicant thinking in terms of usability/adoption of the gadget across languages (or at least the top 10 Wikipedias). I imagine this part of the project might be the most difficult, though. The applicant may need some help with community engagement and brainstorming how best to reach on-wiki groups and projects involved in citation work. Any improvement for "power editors" (I don't like “veteran” ;)) is welcome. I see the user with a large experience and the project has a low risk to fail. Low risk and has an interesting solution. Overall this is a superb and solid idea. Despite being a seasoned editor, dealing with reference templates is unpleasant to say the very least. I would like to see a semantic approach paving the way for reference suggestions on related articles. However, the budgeting needs to be more clear. It seems like the plan is $500 / month. What would be the hourly rate of this plan?

-- MJue (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the IEG Committee

Round 1 2016 decision

Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant.

The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, $3,000

Comments regarding this decision:
The committee is pleased to support your work to improve the efficiency and ease of adding references to Wikipedia. We recognize your strong commitment to Wikimedia’s mission to support free knowledge, and your history of volunteering as developer to improve our projects. We appreciate your efforts to encourage better citations and higher quality knowledge through enhancements to the ProveIt gadget.

Next steps:

1. You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
2. Review the information for grantees.
3. Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
4. Start work on your project!

Questions? Contact us.

Internationalisation/i18n

Adding the software to translatewiki.net should be required. See phabricator:T149177. --Nemo 10:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This was done as part of the grant. --Sophivorus (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Add button not working

Hi, Apologies if this isn't the right place to bring this up but I've had no response from the ProveIt talk page. My "Add" button currently isn't working, going by the talk page for the tool I'm not the only one experiencing this issue. When I hit it nothing happens. I'm using a Samsung Chromebook. Does anyone have any ideas?--5 albert square 21:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Where are you having the issue? It is a widely used xwiki gadget, and there has been some mediawiki: ns changes recently, so it may be that there are local changes that need to take place. Not saying that I can fix it, just that more specific information is required to be able to address any concerns. Wikilinks to where you have asked questions are also useful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, This is where it was asked by another user experiencing the same issue. It's only on the English Wikipedia that I use this tool. I was trying to use it to make this edit earlier but it wouldn't work - just not responding. I eventually gave up and used the classic version to make the edit.--5 albert square 22:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and 5 albert square: I'm looking into it. I think it may actually be related to changes in the TemplateData API. I requested permissions to be able to edit the gadget code, as my previous permissions expired. Support would be useful, thanks! Sophivorus (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sophivorus: Thanks, RR has asked a question with regard to the rights request, and I have hopefully clarified this. When you do get gadget updated, set up and working, I would appreciate a ping. There has been some global sysop requests to implement the tool, so information about its installation of a gadget (preferably as a call from enWP) would be appreciated, rather than having to fumble around in the dark.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sophivorus: Thanks, it's appreciated --5 albert square 10:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)